Type: New Feature
Affects Version/s: 1.2
Fix Version/s: None
Component/s: HTTP Interface
Skill Level:New Contributors Level (Easy)
Currently, we can only grant combined read+write access in the _security object "members" section. A user can either do both or neither. This prevents a very common requirement for couch apps: sending private information from less-privileged users to more-privileged users.
There is no (reasonable) way to make an "inbox" where anybody may create a doc for me, but only I may read it. An inbox database allows user-to-user, or user-to-admin private messages. (Not only chat messages, but asynchronous notifications--with a per-user inbox, perhaps even service requests and responses.)
There is no reason _security.members (formerly .readers) should control write access. validate_doc_update() functions do this better.
I propose a boolean flag, _security.members.allow_anonymous_writes. If it is true, then CouchDB will allow document updates from non-members, giving validate_doc_update() the final word on accepting or rejecting the update.
1. Everything about _security stays the same (backward-compatible)
2. If members.allow_anonymous_writes === true, then most PUT and POSTs may proceed
3. All updates are still subject to approval by all validate_doc_update functions, same as before.
These are the known changes to the security model. I consider these all to be either very unlikely in practice, or worth the trade-off.
- If you write to an inbox DB, you know, for a time, a subset of its documents (but that's the point)
- An _update function could reveal a document to the user, with or without changing it. However, an admin must install such a misguided update function.
- You can launch timing attacks to learn information about validate_doc_update
- You might discover whether doc IDs exist in the DB or not
- You might discover a well-known open source validation function. You can look for bugs in its source code.
- Zero or more things which Jason can't think of